GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 485 Roni WEINSTEIN Pisa University, Dept. of Modern and Contemporary History Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Storia, Sezione Moderna e Contemporanea GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS AMONG THE ITALIAN JEWS IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD: A HISTORIC-ANTHROPOLOGICAL READING RÉSUMÉ De la fin du XVe siècle au milieu du XVIIe, les communautés juives d’Italie furent le lieu d’un débat halakhique sur les présents du fiancé à sa promise. À l’arrière-plan de ce débat figurait la règle talmudique selon laquelle le fondement du mariage ré- side dans le don que fait le fiancé d’un bien à sa future épouse. Les aspects légaux de cette question n’expliquent toutefois qu’en partie la durée et l’âpreté de ce débat. La pérennité de cette coutume, parmi les juifs italiens, en dépit des résistances non moins durables des juifs venus d’ailleurs, est liée à la fonction des présents dans les rituels locaux du mariage. L’étude des écrits consacrés à cette question — ouvrages classiques ou actuels d’inspiration anthropologique — confirment le lien étroit de cette pratique avec les divers aspects de la culture locale: conceptions relatives à la richesse et à la propriété, à l’honneur et à l’identité; contrôle communautaire sur les rituels du mariage et sur l’ensemble de la vie familiale. SUMMARY From late 15th century to mid 17th century an Halakhic debate — about gifts con- ferred from the groom to the bride — was conducted in Jewish-Italian communi- ties. The background for this debate was the Talmudic ruling that marriage was ba- sically created by conferring some property from a man to a woman, his intended wife. The legal aspect explains only partially the longevity of this debate and its acrimonious style. The persistence of Italian Jews to confer gifts, in spite of no less durable objection by non-Italian immigrants to Italy, relates to the function that gifts held in local marriage rituals. In recurring to classical as well as contemporary anthropological works on gifts, it is claimed that gifts connected major issues in lo- cal culture, such as property and wealth, juvenile sub-culture, honor, local identity, and community control of marriage rituals and family life. From late fifteenth to mid seventeenth century an intense polemics evolved in Italy, around the issue of gifts exchange from the groom to the Revue des Études juives, 165 (3-4), juillet-décembre 2006, pp. 485-521 doi: 10.2143/REJ.165.3.2018361 9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein485 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 486 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS bride and, vice versa, before the betrothal act. The halakhic debate involved the most prominent rabbis in Italy, who reiterated time and again that ac- cording to local customs it is permitted to bestow gifts even prior to be- trothal. Yet doubts and resistance to this custom continued, as firmly as ever, until the debate subsided in mid seventeenth century. I would claim that the rise and longevity of this discussion should not be clarified only in halakhic terms, but mostly as derived from the function that gifts exchange between brides, grooms and their families fulfilled during marriage rituals. The modern anthropological and sociological findings about gifts and dona- tions elucidate the meaning of this long controversy. The Legal-Halakhic Status of Gifts Giving during Marriage Biblical stories (Genesis chapters 24 and 34) mention the gifts that the groom's family gives the bride's family, as was customary in the ancient Middle East. This practice is also known at the time of the Mishnah and the Talmud, and was later discussed in rabbinic literature. Discussion focused on the legal definition of the gifts given by the groom to his future bride. It became a delicate issue once the kiddushin [betrothal] were described in analogy to an acquisition act, as described in M. Kiddushin 1:1 “the woman is acquired … by money, by writ, and by intercourse”. The “writ” is the kiddushin writ, namely a valuable material object (due to the parch- ment's cost and the scribe's wages). This writ might explicitly hint at the next writ — the ketubbah — stating the man's financial commitment to his wife. The “money” given to the woman could be coins, bills, or minimal property worth. “Intercourse” is also a way of transferring assets in a soci- ety that attaches financial value to virginity, forcing the man who takes it to pay the woman's father a set sum1. Thus giving some property to the in- tended bride raises doubts in regard to their legal implications. In halakhic terminology, the question is whether we “fear sivlonot” [that is, fear the legal implications of wedding gifts], namely whether gift giving leads to a situation resembling kiddushin. The similarity between the kiddushin ritual and an act of acquisition raises a basic legal query: how to distinguish one from the other? In other 1. See, for instance, Tosefot on Kiddushin 3b, s.v. ‘ha-av zakai be-vito’: “The Palestinian Talmud implies that he [the girl's father] has a legal claim on betrothal through intercourse, since he is paid for it”. On the importance of virginity in Jewish marriage law, see Encyclo- pedia Talmudica, t. 20, Jerusalem, 1947-2005, s.v. ‘ta‘anat betulim’ [virginity claim], 617- 656. See also M. GRUZMAN, “On the Halakhic Development that led the Blood of Defloration to be treated as Ritually Unclean” (in Hebrew), Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature 5, 1990, p. 47-62. 9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein486 9/1/07, 5:03 pm GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS 487 words, how to differentiate a transfer of assets between unmarried men and women as a commercial or economic transaction, from a transfer of assets with an entirely different legal meaning, namely, a change in personal sta- tus? Moreover, how can a woman be protected from men seeking to im- pose kiddushin arrangement on her, claiming they had given her money for kiddushin purpose and she had accepted it?2 The Talmud drew an obvious distinction between two categories of property transfer from a man to a woman, based on the parties' intentions. When the behavior of the two par- ties attests to their wish to marry, the transfer of property or the act of inter- course have a different meaning than that applying in ordinary circum- stances. The issue of “sivlonot” [the gifts the groom confers upon the bride be- fore the wedding], was discussed in detail in TB Kiddushin 50b. R. Pappa sums up the debate: “Wherever the kiddushin precedes the sivlonot, we fear” [if the local custom is to hold the kiddushin and only then give sivlonot we fear, since the gifts could be viewed as evidence of a kiddushin agreement, creating at least a suspicion or a “doubtful kiddushin”]. In other words, local custom determines the gifts' legal status. If all parties under- stand that the custom calls for an exchange of gifts even before the kiddushin, we need not feat that the gift will arouse a suspicion if kiddu- shin. The dictum is simple and unequivocal, and concludes the Talmudic discussion. Although this principle appeared to provide halakhists ruling on “sivlonot fears” with a sufficiently clear criterion, controversy persisted throughout the Middle Ages. Two contrary trends are prominent in the ju- ridical literature, the stringent Ashkenazi and the more lenient Sephardic. Halakha persons of the second tradition engaged in a concrete, factual ex- amination of each case, being aware of the local perception of sivlonot, and particularly of the overt ritual dimensions of gift exchange. By contrast, more stringent halakhists of the first tradition feared that the variety of local customs does not allow a sure determination of the conditions under which gifts exchange is permitted. Given the fear of unwanted consequences, they felt that issuing a far-reaching prohibition was best. Toward the end of the Middle Ages, the lenient trend became dominant. The most prominent halakhists in Ashkenaz stated that contemporary local custom was stable and well known, leaving no room for doubt or fear con- cerning the implications of sivlonot. Ashkenazi authorities, such as R. 2. A derived question (see TB Kiddushin 6a) is whether intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman (“forbidden intercourse”) is legally binding on the man, as a case of be- trothal by intercourse. 9243-06_REJ06/3-4_08_Weinstein487 9/1/07, 5:03 pm 488 GIFT EXCHANGES DURING MARRIAGE RITUALS Salomon Luria (known as Maharshal)3, were joined by others such as Elijah Mizrahi, Moses Alashkar, Benjamin b. Mattitya, David b. Zimra, Joseph Caro, Samuel Medina, Moses Isserles, Elijah n. Hayyim, and Joseph Trani4. Some of them even stated, in principle, rulings should be lenient, contrary to the early Middle Ages overall ruling in favor of stringency. Even those, who occasionally issued stringent rulings, refrained from formulating a general, overall prohibition. The Halakhic Controversy in Italy Concerning Sivlonot The discussion about sivlonot began in Italy toward the end of the fif- teenth century, and evoked a halakhic controversy that faded only gradually during the seventeenth century. Prominent Italian rabbis and halakhists were repeatedly asked about the “fear” of creating a kiddushin situation by giving gifts. In response, they wrote long treatises and exchanged letters and opinions on the subject. Tones were often harsh and vindictive, attest- ing to the controversy's bitterness5. 3. R. Salomon b. Jehiel Luria, Responsa, Jerusalem, 1993, #21, p. 70-75: “The claim to be that sivlonot were given for kiddushin purposes. Unlike the practice stating that sivlonot are only personal gifts and tokens of affection … But in our times [contrary to early Ashkenazic practice], when the custom is to give many sivlonot, and most [grooms] send a ring, golden coins, rubies, and other finery two or three times, this is obviously immaterial”.